Fig. 3.

Decision-making performance in those with persistent psychosis. Comparison of outcome devaluation and reversal learning performance in healthy controls and those with persistent psychosis. For outcome devaluation, persistent psychosis subjects showed a significant bias (A) and response (B) toward the valued outcome (aqua) after devaluation (C). However, the preference toward the valued outcome was significantly less than that observed in controls and featured a bimodal frequency distribution as seen in the frequency histogram along the Y axis (A). For serial-reversal learning, persistent psychosis subjects (blue) took significantly more trials to reach criterion (D) for the first reversal and trended toward the same for the SRL1 and SRL2 stages. These increases were not associated with changes in the number of perseverative errors (E). The strategies used for the SRL1 (F) and SRL2 (G) showed a similar pattern, with persistent psychosis subjects using fewer Win-stays than control subjects. Differences in computational modeling parameters were observed for all parameters in the EWA model (H). Data are displayed as the mean ± standard error. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ^#p < 0.05; ^###p<0.001 compared with controls